Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 61058 debian-policy
Bug#61058: FHS: /usr/local/share/man instead of /usr/local/man ?
Bug reassigned from package `man-db' to `debian-policy'.
> severity 61058 normal
Bug#61058: FHS: /usr/local/share/man instead of /usr/local/man ?
Severity set
Some thoughts.
Maybe some of the problem is in how we use the BTS to manage proposals. It's
far from optimal.
For example, to see what the current problems with a proposal are,
and why it's being stalled, you more or less have to read the bug logs
in their entirety to work out the thread (and bug
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:54:53AM +0300, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:34:39PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Package: man-db
> > Version: 2.3.15
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > I'm not sure about this, but if FHS uses /usr/share/man, shouldn't we then
> > also search in /u
Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 29-Mar-00, 10:32 (CST), Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> :
> > Perhaps that's because (Slink) policy says:
> >
> > 4.7. Configuration files
> >
> >
> > Any configuration files created or used by your package should reside
>
On 29-Mar-00, 11:45 (CST), Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there are at least three basic cases that should be considered:
>
> 1. Files like /etc/services, which are essentially global configuration.
> They do not change often, but they do occasionally. They are essentially
> t
On 29-Mar-00, 10:32 (CST), Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps that's because (Slink) policy says:
>
> 4.7. Configuration files
>
>
> Any configuration files created or used by your package should reside
> in `/etc'. If there are several you
On 29-Mar-00, 08:40 (CST), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > In particular,
> > given the update-mime program, /etc/mailcap should obviously not be a
> > conffile. And as it is, the maintainer should change that -- but
> > changing policy isn
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:45:09PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> 2. Files like /etc/hosts, which are install-specific. The sysadmin is
> expected to change them, and should not be automagically changed without the
> sysadmin knowing.
>
> Case 1 and 2 should be conf files, but case 3 should not.
I
Peter S Galbraith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] saith:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > I also think this proposal should not be needed, but
> considering that
> > nobody managed so far to convince the mime-support maintainer that
> > /etc/mailcap being a conffile is really bad, it seems it is.
>
> Per
Santiago Vila wrote:
> I also think this proposal should not be needed, but considering that
> nobody managed so far to convince the mime-support maintainer that
> /etc/mailcap being a conffile is really bad, it seems it is.
Perhaps that's because (Slink) policy says:
4.7. Configuration files
-
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:47:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > \begin{proposal}
> > > Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
> > > \end{proposal}
> >
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I think this proposal is silly: for something like the cases you
> mention, it is obvious that they should not be conffiles, but should
> be created by the postinst if they do not already exist. It would
> clearly be very stupid for these to be conffile
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:47:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > \begin{proposal}
> > > > Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
> > > > \end{proposal}
> > > What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:47:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > \begin{proposal}
> > > Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
> > > \end{proposal}
> > What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me; but
> > based on the bug report I'd certainly be ha
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > \begin{proposal}
> > Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
> > \end{proposal}
>
> What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me; but
> based
Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> This is going to allow adm members to delete/create logfiles, probably not
> what you intended.
And modify even..
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
|
Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Better yet, read-only access to group adm and no access to world? So
> permissions 275.? Should the /var/log directory be itself be
> viewable/listable by world?
Why? Group adm is only there for sensitive logs (some logs can contain
things like passwords).
Wi
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> That would be fine by me (I would be more awake), but I think
> Wichert has a deadline at 16:30. Would a later date be more
> convenient?
Argh, hmm, I guess I can try to be online 18.00. I might be a bit late
though.
Wichert.
--
_
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> \begin{proposal}
> Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
> \end{proposal}
What is a `text database' ? That term seems very unclear to me; but
based on the bug report I'd certainly be happy to second somet
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:56:31PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > ---
> > > The /var/log directory should have permissions 2755 (set-group-id)
> > > and be owned by root.adm.
> > > ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
The following proposal tries to address cases like Bug #34294.
\begin{proposal}
Do not initialize a text database by using the conffile mechanism.
\end{proposal}
Rationale: We should try to reduce prompting to a minimum during upgrades.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> * Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000329 01:47]:
> > ---
> > The /var/log directory should have permissions 2755 (set-group-id)
> > and be owned by root.adm.
> > -
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:02:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Proposal: (to be inserted into an appropriate place in the policy docs)
> >
> >
> > The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
> > set-group-id)
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:02:18PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Proposal: (to be inserted into an appropriate place in the policy docs)
>
>
> The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
> set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm.
>
> Rationale: root.adm is a be
* Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000329 01:47]:
> ---
> The /var/log directory should have permissions 2755 (set-group-id)
> and be owned by root.adm.
> ---
S
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
> > set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm.
>
> Why group writeable?
Good question. These are the permissions Bruce Perens gave to the /var/l
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
>> > How do we want these files to be?
>> >
>> > a) All of them should be root.root.
>> > b) All of them should be root.adm.
>> > c) This should not be covered by policy.
>>
>> I would say c) and
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Discussion on IRC about policy"):
>> Wednesday March 29th
>> 18:00 CET
>> 16:00 GMT
>> 10:00 CDT
Ian> 1600 is quite inconvenient for me. Would 1800 be possible ?
That would be fine by me (I would be
Better yet, read-only access to group adm and no access to world? So
permissions 275.? Should the /var/log directory be itself be
viewable/listable by world?
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 28, Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The /var/log directory should have p
On Mar 28, Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The /var/log directory should have permissions 2775 (group-writable and
>set-group-id) and be owned by root.adm.
>
>Rationale: root.adm is a better default than root.root.
This isn't a rationale, it's more like a joke.
Please explain the pur
30 matches
Mail list logo
